Two reviews of NIE's study of compensatory education are provided in this document. The conclusions of the first reviewer (House) are that: (1) the study is valid because it meets the standards for the evaluation of a public program; and (2) the compensatory programs, especially Title I, are very good. Other conclusions are that the funds' allocation requirements are necessary but the program development requirements are excessively regulated, program management is efficient but monitoring is confused, and how much students develop in these programs remains hazy. The second review, "Evaluating Compensatory Education" (Husen), takes a broader perspective, based in part on the reviewer's earlier participation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's review of U.S. educational policies. Against this background, the reviewer discusses the role of education in the United States, the philosophy and strategies behind compensatory education, Title I targeting, and evaluation problems. This review concludes that: (1) in looking at the outcome of intervention programs, a broader perspective is needed than appeared in some of the NIE evaluation efforts; (2) well-planned small-scale longitudinal studies conducted where different models of compensatory education are operated would prove more than large-scale surveys; and (3) compensatory education programs are only small changes in the larger context of formal education, and minor changes in input should not be expected to produce dramatic results. (CMG)